Republican Primary

[mlund]

No, not at all. These questions are so basis and wrong that it’s hard to keep up with them; however last like Santorum completely fell apart when struck with the Title X thing. Romney the snake as my vote.

Meh, the Title X “debate” was another one of those “in the weeds” discussions where it’s easy to confuse the issues. Nobody bothers to say what Title X is. Nobody bothers the cite the actual vote involved. When you have two candidate and a moderator all working to keep things obfuscated it’s a tall order. I wish Rick Santorum had been able to cut to the chase cleanly there.

Here’s how it really breaks down:

Title X covers STD prevention, education, and treatment, pelvic exams, breast-cancer screenings, abstinence education, sex education, pregnancy counseling, and contraception for the economically disadvantaged. It does not cover abortion, though Democrats keep trying to add in abortion coverage. Title X funds get distributed by the Executive Branch unless Congress directly Earmarks them. Title X has been funded for the last 40 years.

Rick Santorum has tried to remove the parts of Title X he doesn’t agree with. He’s tried to exclude Planned Parenthood from receiving those funds. He’s put forth Title 20 as an alternative to Title X. In the end, however, Rick Santorum didn’t have enough votes. On top of that, Title X funding gets rolled into the Omnibus Budget. So Rick Santorum had to cast an up-or-down vote, baby-with-bathwater style.

If he votes “yes” Ron Paul gets to accuse him of supporting taxpayer funding of contraception.

If he votes “no” people accuse him of denying testing services and medications to poor people with AIDS, encouraging abortion by denying pregnant mothers medical care, and supporting breast-cancer.

It’s textbook “when did you stop beating your wife” equation. You have to resist the urge to unpack the details in a debate because it takes too long on stage and they aren’t going to let you talk. You’ve got to just cut to the quick - “I’ve constantly fought to reform Title X to remove the parts I don’t agree with, next question.”

• Marty Lund

 

[_Abyssinia]

**New Gallup poll: Romney 50, Obama 46; Obama 49, Santorum 48 **

gallup.com/poll/152918/Romney-Santorum-Closely-Matched-Against-Obama-Nationally.aspx?
In new Gallup/USA Today poll 50%-44% say Obama’s presidency a failure

politicalwire.com/archives/2012/02/23/more_say_obamas_presidency_a_failure.html
Obama says in Univision interview: ‘My presidency is not over. I’ve got another five years coming up.’

He reassured Latinos that he is committed to passing a comprehensive immigration reform plan, blaming the lack of progress on what he describes as an intransigent Congress and a Republican Party that has adopted extreme views on the issue.

“Piolin, I would only have broken my promise if I hadn’t tried. But ultimately, I’m one man,” he said when asked if he broke his promise. “You know, we live in a democracy. We don’t live in a monarchy. I’m not the king. I’m the president. And so, I can only implement those laws that are passed through Congress.”

univisionnews.tumblr.com/post/18103030750/obama-i-didnt-break-my-promise-on-immigration-reform

The arrogance.

Latinos, do not fall for this, he had two years of a Democrat majority House and Senate, he had plenty of time to create comprehensive immigration reform and pass it and he did not.

 

[gilliam]

Rank and file Republicans today don’t care about the Title X debate. They care that they are not employed, those employed have their salaries frozen, and groceries prices are going up and gas is sky rocketing.

 

[gilliam]

Rank and file Republicans today don’t care about the Title X debate. They care that they are not employed, those employed have their salaries frozen, and grocery prices are going up and gas is sky rocketing.

 

[_Abyssinia]

He couldn’t do that. It would not have looked good for Obama and his handling (bungling) of those issues.

Exactly.

 

[LisaA]

I LOVED Christie’s response to Warren Buffet.

“I hear Warren Buffet always complaining about wanting to be taxed more. Do us a favor, write a check and shut up.”

Classic.

And please stop calling Ron/Rand Paul “libertine”. Its a desperate accusation that isn’t even grounded in reality. Libertinism is akin to the Marquis de Sade, one completely devoid of moral constraints. This hardly describe the Pauls. The term was coined by John Calvin to slander his opponents. Calvin believed that all of Geneva should follow his rigid moral constraints, and anyone who didn’t follow suit was slandered as a libertine. As a Catholic, I am loathe to duplicate anything promoted by such a violent and corrupt heretic as Calvin.

Please read the post, I said LIBERTARIANS (the supporters of this party) have a Libertine bent. Check out the party platform. Legalize drugs. Legalize prostitution. Legalize porn. Abortion is a matter of personal choice. Don’t know about your standards on social issues but that sounds pretty LiberTINE to me. I realize Drs. Paul are not quite in step with these positions but their supporters are.

Thus I conclude that the Paul supporters are as likely to support Obama because of his social liberalism as they would be a Republican, particularly since we really don’t have a fiscal hawk in the bunch. My theory being that since Romney and Paul seem pretty congenial, this would be a way of diverting the Paul supporters (Ron not Rand) to Romney vs Obama. Politics is all about strategy and this makes sense given the situation.

Hope this is more clear.

Lisa

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Please read the post, I said LIBERTARIANS (the supporters of this party) have a Libertine bent. Check out the party platform. Legalize drugs. Legalize prostitution. Legalize porn. Abortion is a matter of personal choice. Don’t know about your standards on social issues but that sounds pretty LiberTINE to me. I realize Drs. Paul are not quite in step with these positions but their supporters are.

Thus I conclude that the Paul supporters are as likely to support Obama because of his social liberalism as they would be a Republican, particularly since we really don’t have a fiscal hawk in the bunch. My theory being that since Romney and Paul seem pretty congenial, this would be a way of diverting the Paul supporters (Ron not Rand) to Romney vs Obama. Politics is all about strategy and this makes sense given the situation.

Hope this is more clear.

Lisa

I am a libertarian, not a member of the Libertarian Party. I am not a member of any political party. Too often I find them a crutch for poor thinking.

 

[LisaA]

I understand your point but I was talking about withholding taxes when they exceed the taxes owed. I don’t know what other controls an individual has in the matter prior to claiming the tax “refund.” The earned income credit which more than offsets taxes owed is another animal.

Sorry for the mixup but when you said individual tax planning should prevent refunds, well in fact it does! THus I concluded you were talking about refundable credits.

Yes you CAN completely control the withholding taxes by claiming an appropriate number of exemptions. There is a worksheet at www.irs.gov that will lead you through the calculaton. I suspect a lot of people either don’t bother or want a refund thus let Uncle Sam use their money for free.

The cost of refunds though has been reduced substantially with electronic filing and refunding.

But it is up to the employee to calculate the proper withholding level and let their employer know how much to take out of the check

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I am a libertarian, not a member of the Libertarian Party. I am not a member of any political party. Too often I find them a crutch for poor thinking.

OK that’s great. I’m a member of the Republican Party because it is necessary to vote in my state. That doesn’t mean that I’m tied to everything they say and do. Hopefully the old days of voting a straight ticket are over. People need to make thoughtful decisions because the future of our country is at stake.

What do you think about the potential running mates for our GOP nominee?

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

I can’t figure out the Romney-Paul “alliance.” My only guess is that Paul assumes Romney will be the nominee and expects that Mitt will return these kinds of favors later on, maybe by putting Rand Paul in the administration or something. I like Paul’s positions on many issues, but this doesn’t sit well with me. Romney’s record and positions ought to be just as repellent to Paul as Santorum’s or Gingrich’s.

That said, it was a rough debate for Santorum. I was astounded that in explaining “No Child Left Behind” he admitted to voting against his own principles and just being a team player. He may as well have been wearing a shirt that said “Washington Insider.” I much prefer Santorum to Romney, but things just didn’t go his way last night.

I hate to say it, but the problem with Santorum is that he’s too honest and forthright to be President. In one sense, he compromised on his principles, as you say; but on the other hand, his principles included serving the people of his state. I’m speaking as objectively as I can, given I don’t agree with much of Santorum’s social conservatism and that I’m basically a liberal Democrat. I admire him, however, for his steadfastness; but that admirable trait probably won’t get him the nomination for his party. The truism happens to be correct: politics, particularly presidential politics, is a dirty business. That’s why the best candidates are often not elected, and don’t even bother to run.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I am a libertarian, not a member of the Libertarian Party. I am not a member of any political party. Too often I find them a crutch for poor thinking.

I don’t even go to the libertarian party web site.

Don’t like the idea of a party platform for a libertarian party plus the logo isn’t that good.

 

[ProVobis]

Thus I conclude that the Paul supporters are as likely to support Obama because of his social liberalism as they would be a Republican, particularly since we really don’t have a fiscal hawk in the bunch. My theory being that since Romney and Paul seem pretty congenial, this would be a way of diverting the Paul supporters (Ron not Rand) to Romney vs Obama. Politics is all about strategy and this makes sense given the situation.

It is my hope that Ron Paul can capture votes from both sides.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m a member of the Republican Party because it is necessary to vote in my state.

Only for the primaries or the general election as well?

 

[snowpea]

Last nights debate was pathetic-i dont know why they let the moderator bait them to attack each other-the candidates hardly even mentioned obama

santorum and romney were embarrassing the way they bickered

 

[LisaA]

Only for the primaries or the general election as well?

Primaries but quite honestly that’s where an individual has some chance of an impact so I don’t want to give that up. Often with the primaries are ballot measures and other elections for city/county officials. My understanding is that you don’t get to vote until the general if you don’t specify or list as Independent.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Last nights debate was pathetic-i dont know why they let the moderator bait them to attack each other-the candidates hardly even mentioned obama

santorum and romney were embarrassing the way they bickered

I understand this might be the swan song and thank heavens. I like the idea of debates and I think they certainly were valuable in thinning out the candidates but the law of diminishing returns is alive and well. Further as you said, the moderators have control (although Gingrich occasionally gets in a zinger) and do their best to make the candidates look stupid, angry or clueless. They ask stupid questions that are not relevant and ignore elephants in the room. Not a SINGLE question about gas prices! A perfect opportunity to bash Obama. Of course the MSM doesn’t want that.

Lisa

 

[qui_est_ce]

I hate to say it, but the problem with Santorum is that he’s too honest and forthright to be President. In one sense, he compromised on his principles, as you say; but on the other hand, his principles included serving the people of his state. I’m speaking as objectively as I can, given I don’t agree with much of Santorum’s social conservatism and that I’m basically a liberal Democrat. I admire him, however, for his steadfastness; but that admirable trait probably won’t get him the nomination for his party. The truism happens to be correct: politics, particularly presidential politics, is a dirty business. That’s why the best candidates are often not elected, and don’t even bother to run.

I agree with most of what you wrote. But I do think he is refreshing to a lot of voters, and that might just be why he has been surging.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I understand this might be the swan song and thank heavens. I like the idea of debates and I think they certainly were valuable in thinning out the candidates but the law of diminishing returns is alive and well. Further as you said, the moderators have control (although Gingrich occasionally gets in a zinger) and do their best to make the candidates look stupid, angry or clueless. They ask stupid questions that are not relevant and ignore elephants in the room. Not a SINGLE question about gas prices! A perfect opportunity to bash Obama. Of course the MSM doesn’t want that.

Lisa

I was appalled by the question on what their personal beliefs on contraception was. Gingrich’s response had John King backtracking.

I thought Newt did well in the debate, but I don’t think I could stand 4 hours of listening to his haughty voice.

 

[LisaA]

I was appalled by the question on what their personal beliefs on contraception was. Gingrich’s response had John King backtracking.

I thought Newt did well in the debate, but I don’t think I could stand 4 hours of listening to his haughty voice.

BTW on Lifenews, Newt was quoted as taking the media to task for not asking Obama about his promotion of infanticide. This was a closely held secret and of course the media would not let out that he voted against the Babies Born Alive Act. I hope this comes back out to the forefront because it clearly demonstrates the level of his disregard for human life. The current mandate is but a step along the road to more abortions and euthanasia.

I also heard Santorum retorted that “Yes these are my views on the subject but unlike Democrats I don’t intend to LEGISLATE them into law.” something to that effect. I think the efforts of the MSM to make any religious Republican sound like Elmer Gantry can be easily defused by pointing out that it’s LEFTISTS trying to inflict THEIR standards on us, not conservatives telling leftists they must believe in God or go to church every week. The double standard is ridiculous. The media should be embarrassed by their lack of journalistic standards.

Lisa

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

Interesting story on NPR this morning:

npr.org/2012/02/23/147272092/budget-watchdog-to-candidates-back-up-tough-talk

I’m still in it for Paul with Santorum as my second choice.